|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 18, 2008, 7:21 AM
Post #1 of 15
(3137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Ok, this is an interesting analysis.
It is by DXO labs which you might know for their software, or for the fact they supply the testing for PopPhotos certified test results.
Well, DXO went out on their own and tested all the cameras from around 2005 onward, and some further back.
I'm gonna give you the top 10:
1. D3 (queen of low ISO)
2. D700 (king of low ISO)
3. 1DsMIII (overall not much below the D3/D700 until high ISO)
4. Sony A900
5. 1DsMII
6. D90 (very impressive first non full frame sub $1000 camera)
7. 1DMIII (second place for non full frame but $2500 more than D90)
8. EOS 5D (pld fellow from 2005 holds it's own)
9. Samsung GX20 (same sensor/camera as Pentax K20D, K20D ranked 14th???)
10. Pentax K10D (lowest priced camera in top 10 by both initial price and final sale price, also only non FF camera from prior to 2008)
A few notes. First the D90 and GX20 deserve some recognition. In a world when we've been convinced FF is essential for high quality images, those two cameras are at least $1500 less than the competition!!! And still cheaper than some lower ranked cameras are used. As a note, the D300 ranks #11.
Second, this was Samsungs 1st CMOS sensor, and first DSLR sensor. To be ranked that high on round #1 is very impressive. I'm pretty confident Samsung is going to be a thorn in Sony's side, as well as the rest of the competition.
As for the Pentax K10D, well, it shows that RAW data isn't RAW data. The Nikon D200 doesn't even make the top 15, and the D80 doesn't either. Both used the Sony sensor. The difference was the K10D used a 14bit D/A converter and only 2 channel conversion rather than the D200 4 channel. The 4 channel conversion is part of why the D200 results are so poor considering it was a $2000 camera on release!
In addition to the above paragraph on RAW data, the Samsung GX20and Pentax K20D are identical internally, and yet one scores 5 places above the other. Again, this shows there is more to RAW data!
The D3/D700 are clearly the kings of low iso though and by a lot. But the 1DsMIII is still competitive and offers a more well rounded package with much closer to medium format (film) resolution than Nikons 12MP.
Finally, (and this is my fanboyism coming out)...Where are the Canon 30D/40D/50D...just keep on scrolling, they are on the list way down just sneaking into the top 20!!!
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Nov 18, 2008, 8:48 AM
Post #2 of 15
(3123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
Dude, do you work for pentax?
Raw is for people who don't know how to expose well. Lots of national geographic photographers shot low latitude slide film by metering off their palm (its one stop lighter then light-meter-average-18%-grey if you don't know that trick) and rarely botched a shot.
Sensors mean shit in the world of well lit climbing. 5 years ago people were shooting on iso 50 velvia and still feeling the need to drop money on neutral density filters.
If your photos aren't good enough, you are not close enough to the action, that is all their is too it. robert kapa got it right 60 something years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Nov 18, 2008, 10:13 AM
Post #3 of 15
(3106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
ryanb wrote: Dude, do you work for pentax? Raw is for people who don't know how to expose well. Lots of national geographic photographers shot low latitude slide film by metering off their palm (its one stop lighter then light-meter-average-18%-grey if you don't know that trick) and rarely botched a shot.
Shooting raw unlocks a lot of powerful options both during the shoot and during post processing. It's a powerful tool; you can use it or you can not use it.
In reply to: Sensors mean shit in the world of well lit climbing. 5 years ago people were shooting on iso 50 velvia and still feeling the need to drop money on neutral density filters.
Five years ago I was part of the last year in my program to still do E6 and C-41 processing; after that all colour photography in the program was strictly digital.
The commercial front is largely digital these days. It's not some sort of gimmick or accident; it's because digital work flow allows for a lot of flexibility and a generally more dynamic work flow. How much a given photographer is able to consistently exploit this is entirely dependent on their skill.
In reply to: If your photos aren't good enough, you are not close enough to the action, that is all their is too it. robert kapa got it right 60 something years ago.
Do you mean Robert Capa? Back then he used the tools available to him. I mean, he was shooting on a 35mm Leica, so he wasn't exactly a traditionalist on that front. Photographic tools are continually evolving, but if you'd like to stay stuck in the past that's totally your prerogative.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Nov 18, 2008, 1:29 PM
Post #4 of 15
(3080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
Pico,
Could you provide the link? I can't find the list on the dxo site.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
JoshCaple
Nov 18, 2008, 1:33 PM
Post #5 of 15
(3078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 43
|
Thanks ryanb, got a good chuckle out of your post.
In reply to: How good is your camera?
It's a hell of a lot better than my new website (http://www.joshcaple.com) or blog (http://www.joshcaple.com/blog/), thank goodness for that.
(This post was edited by JoshCaple on Nov 18, 2008, 1:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Nov 18, 2008, 5:03 PM
Post #7 of 15
(3029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
Kris, I'm not saying film is the way to go...I've run hundreds of roles of bulk loaded tri-x and sensia through a beat to shit leica range finder and now it sits forlorn in favor of digital.
However, all of the camera listed and pretty much any camera out there will produce a wonderful image if you figure out how to get it to expose right and point it at the right thing. The best camera is the one you will carry with you and use ... the most interesting climbing photography (and the stuff the catalogues pay the big bucks for) is often made on compacts by climbers in thick of it.
You can drop 3k on the king of low light if you want but all it means is that you are going to be the guy at the campfire pointing an oversized camera in everybody's face...only slightly less annoying then the rich guy with dijaredoo...and relaly there must be thousands of those campfire photos taken every year...when was the last time you saw one published?
Josh,
Thanks. Nice blog and site, mine are:
http://freethehills.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbressler/
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Nov 18, 2008, 6:13 PM
Post #8 of 15
(2999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I saw this the other day - it looks kinda cool, but, I think with any testing other then your own, personal what and how you shoot, the results may or may not be valid. I have heard a whole lot of great stuff about the d3/d700 from people I trust with real world experience. Most give it a very slight edge over the mark III at high ISO, but consider the 1dsMark III better still overall when you look at the final print. I know that if I wasn't already pretty heavily invested in Canon, I would give Nikon a serious look, but the difference doesn't translate to enough of a gain to take a hit on gear, like a whole lot of people did a few years ago, going to canon from nikon for the IQ and high ISO. And a number of people have jumped back this year - to nikon from canon.
And for all the other, fun, side discussions, I think you will find that most people making $$$ off of climbing photos use digital. And I love RAW files - they just hold up better to tweaking the jpgs. Yes, even when I "get it right" in camera, the files still get tweaked.
|
|
|
|
|
henrikh
Nov 18, 2008, 6:35 PM
Post #9 of 15
(2984 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2008
Posts: 27
|
ryanb wrote: Kris, I'm not saying film is the way to go...I've run hundreds of roles of bulk loaded tri-x and sensia through a beat to shit leica range finder and now it sits forlorn in favor of digital. However, all of the camera listed and pretty much any camera out there will produce a wonderful image if you figure out how to get it to expose right and point it at the right thing. The best camera is the one you will carry with you and use ... the most interesting climbing photography (and the stuff the catalogues pay the big bucks for) is often made on compacts by climbers in thick of it. You can drop 3k on the king of low light if you want but all it means is that you are going to be the guy at the campfire pointing an oversized camera in everybody's face...only slightly less annoying then the rich guy with dijaredoo...and relaly there must be thousands of those campfire photos taken every year...when was the last time you saw one published?..
I sense great truth in your post
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Nov 18, 2008, 6:45 PM
Post #10 of 15
(2977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
What I'm saying is that most of these developments have evolved for a reason. Shooting for commercial purposes, there are just so many variables that your camera can't realistically cope with on its own, so you have to learn techniques and workarounds to compensate, and you have to try to bring your environment and lighting as much under your control as possible.
Modern cameras are continually struggling to address these issues and and control them in the most logical piece of equipment; the camera itself.
I have to admit that part of me cringes to see some guy with a mid-life crisis and absolutely no photographic experience toting the most expensive kit someone could con him into buying. Is it a bit of a waste that he has no idea how to use that flashy gear as more than a lame icebreaker with twenty-something-year-old girls in hopes that his massive lens will somehow reflect well on the size of his manhood? Yeah.
Then again, if that's how someone wants to piss away their money, that's their business. Ultimately, they're still contributing to the high-end, small format digital market. This helps fuel the inter-brand pissing match to one up each other, which means better technology that trickles down to less costly bodies as well.
I don't blame my camera if I can't get a shot to work, but I do accept its limitations and that it's up to me to push them and compensate for them. Still, I'd really appreciate more power if it was being offered to me. I'm going to wait a year to see how somethings develop (no pun) first though.
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Nov 18, 2008, 7:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Nov 18, 2008, 6:50 PM
Post #11 of 15
(2970 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
ryanb wrote: ...only slightly less annoying then the rich guy with dijaredoo...and relaly there must be thousands of those campfire photos taken every year...when was the last time you saw one published? Josh,
I'd pay good money to see a campfire full of burning didgeridoos.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Nov 18, 2008, 7:12 PM
Post #12 of 15
(2959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Pic,
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post your summary. It was enlightening (and it gives us something to argue about!).
(This post was edited by Paul_Y on Nov 18, 2008, 7:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Nov 18, 2008, 7:16 PM
Post #13 of 15
(2951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
my camera freaking rocks. It is an Olympus stylus 790 SW. it is water proof, shock proof, freeze proof, and crush proof, what more could you want. I really don't understand why it's not number one on your list, as it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 19, 2008, 1:47 AM
Post #14 of 15
(2907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Just as a note to everyone getitng their panties in a bunch:
I think Paul_Y got the idea.
It's really just for discussion. And quite frankly while I don't work for Pentax (or Nikon or Olympus or Leica all brands I will from time to time praise for quality products) I was surprised that a 2006 1.5X APS sensor that had an issue price of $906 body only, was on the list with a bunch of $3000+ 2008 cameras!!! More surprised considering Nikon and Sony used the same sensor in about 6 total cameras. If you don't think that is impressive than you're an idiot (no offense of course).
My guess is between most cameras at ISO400 and below you can't tell the difference after the image as been processed. I know I sometimes forget whether I took a printied shot with my 6MP, 10MP or 14.5 MP DSLRs without going back and looking at the metadata.
As far as saying RAW is useless, not gonna argue with you. Other than to say that RAW gives more data, more control, and uses the full output of the sensor. Plus, it gives me an archival base copy to work from that can't accidentally be F'd up. It also doesn't apply sharpening, or compression that CANNOT be undone.
Anyone who knows my history on here knows I was as anti digital as anyone, but the fact is, there is a point you stop resisting change and start accepting the pluses of technology.
RAW simply allows me more control, an idiot who is toting a camera around for a few weeks can master exposure, and with digital bracketing is free, so I don't get the point that RAW is for idiots that can't expose. Quite frankly I will not adjust an image more than 1/3 stop in RAW, which means I am exposing it as precisely as my slide film but now I have tools to work with that losslessly open shadows and restore (mildly) mildly blown hightlights.
I can now fully control the tonal range of images while working on 1st generation data, and also no need for filters with RAW. I adjust white balance to control color temp, I shoot 2 shots and merge to do GND filtration. This simplifies work in the field, and also gives me much more exact results without the need for expensive filters that get lost, broken scratched, and also diffract light creating flare.
The only filter I still use is a polarizer because it simply cannot be replicated.
So while you might be right, good photos can be taken on JPEG or film, I think RAW is a huge advantage to those who use it!
(This post was edited by pico23 on Nov 19, 2008, 5:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Nov 19, 2008, 5:51 AM
Post #15 of 15
(2883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
Well said Pico.
CPLs are the only filters I use.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
